DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/22/2025 with respect to the rejection of Independent Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0077213 A1 to Gomez et al. (“Gomez”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0071035 A1 to Marshall et al. (“Marshall”) have been considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the combination of Gomez and Marshall does not disclose “wherein the surgical instrument is removably mountable to the actuator assembly with the first drive output in contact with the first drive input and with the second drive output in contact with the second drive input, such that activation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first carriage, resulting in linear movement of the first drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the first actuation tendon, and such that activation of the second motor causes linear movement of the second carriage, resulting in linear movement of the second drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the second actuation tendon” as recited by amended Claim 15. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of WO 2019/164856 A1 in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018.
With respect to Applciant’s arguments regarding dependent Claims 16-22, 24-27 and 29-31, Applicant’s arguments are based on Applicant’s arguments regarding Independent Claim 15. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the same reasons as explained above with respect to Independent Claim 15. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of WO 2019/164856 A1 in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 18 and 22 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to remedy the cited deficiencies. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to remedy the cited informality. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “The robotic system assembly of claim 15,” but should recite --The robotic system assembly of claim 16--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “The robotic system assembly of claim 28,” but should recite --The robotic system assembly of claim 29--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 16, 18-20, 24, 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/164856 A1 to Rabindran et al. (“Rabindran”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018 (“Yuen”).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Rabindran teaches:
A robotic system assembly comprising: (Title, “Systems and methods for control of end effectors;” Para. [0051], “Aspects of the invention are described primarily in terms of an implementation using a da Vinci® Surgical System commercialized by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California.”);
an actuator assembly (Figs. 21 and 22, “drive unit 2130;” see Annotated Fig. 21, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
839
1351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
including a first motor, (Fig. 21 and 22, “actuator 2152;” Para. [00147]; see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
a first carriage coupled to the first motor, (Fig. 21 and 22, “engagement member 2158;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
the first carriage linearly advanceable in response to activation of the first motor, (Para. [00147], “As lead screw 2154 is rotated by actuator 2152, the rotation causes an engagement member 2158 to move along lead screw 2154.”);
the first carriage including a first face, a first drive output on the first face, a second face, and a first strain sensor on the [first] face, wherein the first and second faces are on opposite sides of the first carriage; (see Annotated Fig. 21, above)
Rabindran teaches such a strain sensor as claimed at Para. [00150] (“In some examples, each of the one or more force and/or torque sensors may include a strain gauge, a pressure transducer, a force transducer, a piezoelectric device, and/or the like”), but Rabindran only expressly states that its strain sensor is positioned on the first face (see Para. [00150], discussing positioning such a sensor at “location 2198” of Fig. 21).
While Rabindran states that “other locations are possible” and that “multiple force and/or torque sensors may be used at any combination of locations” (Rabindran at Para. [00150]), Rabindran does not fairly teach “a first strain sensor on the second face.” This deficiency is addressed below.
a second motor, (Fig. 21 and 22, “actuator 2162;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
a second carriage coupled to the second motor, (Fig. 21 and 22, “engagement member 2168;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
the second carriage linearly advanceable in response to activation of the second motor, (Para. [00148], “As lead screw 2164 is rotated by actuator 2162, the rotation causes an engagement member 2168 to move along lead screw 2164;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
the second carriage including a third face, a second drive output on the third face, and a second strain sensor on the fourth face, wherein the third and fourth faces are on opposite sides of the second carriage; (see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
Rabindran teaches such a strain sensor as claimed at Para. [00150] (“In some examples, each of the one or more force and/or torque sensors may include a strain gauge, a pressure transducer, a force transducer, a piezoelectric device, and/or the like”), but Rabindran only expressly states that its strain sensor is positioned on the third face (see Para. [00150], discussing positioning such a sensor at “location 2198” of Fig. 21).
While Rabindran states that “other locations are possible” and that “multiple force and/or torque sensors may be used at any combination of locations” (Rabindran at Para. [00150]), Rabindran does not fairly teach “a second strain sensor on the fourth face.” This deficiency is addressed below
a surgical instrument (Fig. 21 and 22, “system 2100”);
comprising an elongate shaft (Fig. 21 and 22, “shaft 2120;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above)
and a surgical end effector on a distal end of the elongate shaft; (Fig. 21 and 22, “end effector 2110;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
a first drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, (Fig. 21 and 22, “engagement member 2144;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
and a first actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the first drive input, (Fig. 21 and 22, “transmission mechanism 2142;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
wherein the first drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the first actuation tendon; (Para. [00146], “As shown, movement of engagement member 2144 in a proximal direction by drive unit 2130 results in movement of a degree of freedom of end effector 2110 in a first direction.”);
a second drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, (Fig. 21 and 22, “engagement member 2148;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
and a second actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the second drive input, (Fig. 21 and 22, “transmission mechanism 2146;” see Annotated Fig. 21, above);
wherein the second drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the second actuation tendon; (Para. [00146], “As shown, movement of engagement member 2148 in a proximal direction by drive unit 2130 results in movement of the degree of freedom of ender effector 2110 in a second direction opposite the first direction….”);
wherein the surgical instrument is removably mountable to the actuator assembly (Para. [0079] makes reference to the surgical instrument being “removably mounted;” Para. [0075], “ The drive system 400 releasably receives the instrument 300.”);
with the first drive output in contact with the first drive input and with the second drive output in contact with the second drive input, such that activation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first carriage, resulting in linear movement of the first drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the first actuation tendon, and such that activation of the second motor causes linear movement of the second carriage, resulting in linear movement of the second drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the second actuation tendon. (Para. [00155] through [00156]; Figs. 21-23; Paras. [0035] through [0037]; Fig. 24);
Figs. 21-23 depict the motion of Rabindran’s carriages and drive inputs during device operation. Fig. 22 “depicts the drive unit and instrument of FIG. 21 after partial engagement” (Para. [0036]) and Fig. 23 “depicts the drive unit and instrument of FIG. 21 after engagement” (Para. [0037]). Paras. [00155] through [00156] detail the response of Rabindran’s “drive inputs” to linear movement of Rabindran’s “carriages.” Fig. 24 illustrates change in tension in Rabindran’s “actuation tendons” in response to such movement.
Rabindran does not disclose:
and a first strain sensor on the second face
and a second strain sensor on the fourth face
Yuen describes “Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback” (Title) in the context of robotics (Abstract). Yuen is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Yuen teaches:
and a first strain sensor on the second face (Pg. 4 of 6, Right Column, Third Paragraph, “By embedding two strain sensors on opposite walls of the actuator chamber, we were able to measure bending by calculating the difference in sensor outputs of two sensors in the same actuator.”);
and a second strain sensor on the fourth face (Pg. 4 of 6, Right Column, Third Paragraph)
That is, Yuen teaches mounting strain sensors to opposing sides of a surface of interest. As Rabindran teaches a strain sensor positioned on Rabindran’s “first face” and “third face,” such use of sensors on opposing sides as taught by Yuen would result in positioning of a strain sensor on Rabindran’s opposing “second face” and “fourth face” respectively.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rabindran with the teachings of Yuen (i.e., to position Rabindran’s strain sensors on opposing faces of Rabindran’s carriages in the manner taught by Yuen) in order to determine assess the amount of bending on the carriage (Yuen at Pg. 5 of 6, Right Column, First Paragraph), which is useful in optimizing feedback control (Yuen at Pg. 5 of 6, Right Column, Third Paragraph).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein each of the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor is positioned to measure strain in the corresponding underlying carriage (Para. [00150], “. In some examples, the forces or torques measured by each of the force and/or torque sensors may be aggregated to estimate the force or torque applied by the respective engagement member (the engagement member being moved by an actuator of the drive unit) to the corresponding engagement member of the instrument. In some examples, the aggregation may be a weighted sum, such as an average. In some examples, each of the one or more force and/or torque sensors may include a strain gauge, a pressure transducer, a force transducer, a piezoelectric device, and/or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein the first carriage is linearly advanceable along a first axis in response to activation of the first motor, (Fig. 21 and 22, see Annotated Fig. 21 above, “First Control Axis”);
and wherein the first strain sensor is positioned to generate feedback corresponding to forces along the first axis (Para. [00150]; Para. [00151]; see Annotated Fig. 21, above).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 18 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein, when the surgical instrument is mounted to the actuator assembly, the first drive input is positioned such that actuation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first drive input along an axis parallel to the first axis. (Para. [00155] through [00156]; Figs. 21-23; Paras. [0035] through [0037]; Fig. 24; see Annotated Fig. 21, above)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein the first motor includes a screw member extending from the first motor, and wherein the first carriage is moveable on the screw member (Para. [00148], “Drive unit 2130 further includes an actuator 2162 mounted to drive unit 2130. In some examples, actuator 2162 is a motor and/or the like. Actuator 2162 is drivably coupled to a lead screw 2164 at a first end of lead screw 2164.”).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein the system further includes a first position sensor positioned to generate feedback corresponding to a position of the carriage (Para. [00151], “In some examples, one or more position and/or speed/velocity sensors located at, for example, location 2194 may be used to track a position and/or velocity of lead screw 2164 and/or engagement member 2168 along lead screw 2164.”).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein: the actuator assembly includes a proximal housing and a distal instrument-receiving portion; (Para. [00149], “ A second end of lead screw 2174 is anchored to the housing of drive unit 2130….”);
the first motor and the second motor are disposed within the proximal housing; (Figs. 21-23, “Actuator 2152” and “Actuator 2162” are shown within a housing);
at least a portion of the first carriage and at least a portion of the second carriage are exposed at the distal instrument-receiving portion; (Figs. 21-23, “engagement member 2158” and “engagement member 2168” are exposed throughout the space in which they contact “engagement member 2144” and “engagement member 2148” );
and the surgical instrument includes a proximal body, (Fig. 4, “housing 402”);
wherein the first drive input and the drive input are each at least partially exposed at the proximal body (Figs. 21-23, “engagement member 2144” and “engagement member 2148” are exposed throughout the space in which they contact “engagement member 2158” and “engagement member 2168”);
and wherein the proximal body is removably positionable in contact with the instrument-receiving portion to operatively engage the first carriage with the first drive input and to operatively engage the second carriage with the second drive input (Para. [0075], “ The drive system 400 releasably receives the instrument 300. In particular, the instrument 300 is inserted through the housing 402 of the instrument 300 and extends through the housing 402 into the cannula 256;” Para. [00155] through [00156]; Figs. 21-23; Paras. [0035] through [0037]).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein one of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab, and wherein when the first carriage is operatively engaged with the first drive input a proximal or distal surface of the tab is positioned in contact with the other of the first drive output and the first drive input. (Fig. 23; see Annotated Fig. 23, below)
PNG
media_image2.png
748
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 29 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein each of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab Fig. 23; see Annotated Fig. 23, above)
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 29 as explained above.
Rabindran additionally teaches:
wherein the first drive output and the first drive input are in mating engagement when the first carriage is operatively engaged with the first drive input. (Fig. 23, “engagement members” 2144 and 2158 are shown in mating engagement, their shapes being complementary)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/164856 A1 to Rabindran et al. (“Rabindran”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018 (“Yuen”) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of previously cited Non-Patent Literature: Amjadi M, Turan M, Clementson CP, Sitti M. Parallel Microcracks-based Ultrasensitive and Highly Stretchable Strain Sensors. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016 Mar 2;8(8):5618-26 (“Amjadi”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 16 as explained above.
The combination of Rabindran and Yuen does not disclose:
wherein the first and second strain sensors are thin film strain sensors
Amjadi describes “Parallel Microcracks-based Ultrasensitive and Highly Stretchable Strain Sensors” (Title), and discusses their use in “train sensing applications such as human physiological activity recognition, human body large motion capturing, vibration detection, pressure sensing, and soft robotics” (Abstract). Amjadi is thus analogous art.
Amjadi discloses:
wherein the first and second strain sensors are thin film strain sensors (Pg. 5619, Left Col., First Paragraph, “Herein, we present highly sensitive and stretchable strain sensors through a simple, cost-effective, and mass-producible strategy. High performance strain sensors are developed by controllable introduction of self-organized parallel micro cracks in the graphite thin films coated on top of soft elastomer films.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen with the teachings of Amjadi (i.e., to use such thin film sensors as taught by Amjadi as the strain sensors of combined Rabindran and Yuen) in order to benefit from “stable, reliable, and fast response time to both tensile and compressive strains with very low hysteresis behavior” while simultaneously limiting cost (Amjadi at Pg. 5624, Right Col., First Paragraph).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen with the teachings of Amjadi (i.e., to use such thin film sensors as taught by Amjadi as the strain sensors of combined Rabindran and Yuen) because such a modification entails only a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The prior art contains a device which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., Rabindran’s unspecified strain sensors) with other components (i.e., thin film strain sensors).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. For example, Amjadi describes such thin film strain sensors at Pg. 5619, Left Col., First Paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/164856 A1 to Rabindran et al. (“Rabindran”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018 (“Yuen”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent No. 5,397,323 A to Taylor et al. (“Taylor”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Rabindran and Yuen does not disclose:
wherein the screw member is a ball screw member
Taylor describes a “Remote center-of-motion robot for surgery” (Title). Taylor is thus analogous art.
Taylor discloses:
wherein the screw member is a ball screw member (Col. 8, Ln. 49-61, “Because non-backdrivable transmission elements are used in actuators 9, 10, 13, 14, and in XYZ stage 16, forces applied to the surgical instrument 11 will not be transmitted to the drive motors and (even if the motors are turned off) will result in no net motion of the instrument. In alternative embodiments, in which active control of the forces exerted by a surgical instrument on the patient may be desired, these transmission elements may be replaced by backdrivable transmission elements such as ball-screws, low friction rack-and pinions, belts, direct coupling, or the like so that forces applied to the instrument will be transmitted with little loss back to the drive motors.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen with the teachings of Taylor (i.e., to use such ball screws in the device of Rabindran as taught by Taylor) in order to reduce the amount of force applied to the instrument that is transmitted to the motor (Taylor at Col. 8, Ln. 49-61).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/164856 A1 to Rabindran et al. (“Rabindran”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018 (“Yuen”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0156928 A1 to He et al. (“He”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Rabindran and Yuen does not disclose:
wherein the first carriage includes a flexure, and wherein the first strain sensor is positioned to generate feedback corresponding to deflection of the first carriage at the flexure.
He describes “a new 3-DOF force sensing ophthalmic tool” (Para. [0070]). He is thus analogous art.
He discloses:
wherein the first carriage includes a flexure, and wherein the first strain sensor is positioned to generate feedback corresponding to deflection of the first carriage at the flexure (Para. [0027], “This force sensor uses a flexure to decouple axial and transverse force sensing. This flexure also improves the axial force sensing sensitivity with the flexure elasticity. At the same time, this flexure minimizes the axial force sensing noise attributed to transverse forces.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen with the teachings of He (i.e., to include such a flexure as described by He in the device Rabindran n) in order to “minimize[] axial force sensing noise attributed to transverse forces” (He at Para. [0027]).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/164856 A1 to Rabindran et al. (“Rabindran”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Yuen, Michelle Ching-Sum et al.; "Strain Sensor-Embedded Soft Pneumatic Actuators for Extension and Bending Feedback;" Conference Paper, 018 IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), April 28, 2018 (“Yuen”) as applied to Claim 24 above, and further in view of previously cited U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0014998 A1 to Langenfield et al. (“Langenfield”).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Rabindran and Yuen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 24 as explained above.
The combination of Rabindran and Yuen does not disclose:
wherein the first position sensor comprises a magnetic position sensor
Langenfield describes a “Robotic Surgery System, Method, And Apparatus” (Title). Langenfield is thus analogous art.
Langenfield discloses:
wherein the first position sensor comprises a magnetic position sensor (Para. [0246]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen with the teachings of Langenfield (i.e., to use such a magnetic position sensor as taught by Langenfield in the device of combined Rabindran and Yuen) in order to facilitate determination of absolute position (Langenfield at Para. [0246]).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Rabindran, Yuen and Langenfield renders obvious the entirety of Claim 25 as explained above.
Langenfield additionally discloses:
wherein the first carriage includes a magnetic device and wherein the first position sensor includes a Hall sensor (Para. [0225], “Referring now to FIG. 31A, load sensor 98C can include the electrical component 160C, for example, but not limited to, a magnetic sensor such as a Hall effect sensor or Hall effect sensor array;” Para. [0247], “Sensor drivers mounted upon printed circuit board 15E7 can receive sensor data from sensors 15E8-1 through 15E8-3 such as, for example, but not limited to, Hall sensors.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-22, 24-26 and 28-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-12, and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/435,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to use the apparatus recited in Claims 15-22, 24-26 and 28-31 of the Present Application to perform the method recited in Claims 1-8 and 10-12, and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/435,145, as elaborated upon below:
17/495,687
18/435,145
Explanation
Claim 15
A robotic system assembly comprising:
an actuator assembly including a first motor and a first carriage coupled to the first motor, the first carriage linearly advanceable in response to activation of the first motor, the first carriage including a first face, a first drive output on the first face, a second face, and a first strain sensor on the second face, wherein the first and second faces are on opposite sides of the first carriage
a second motor and a second carriage coupled to the second motor, the second carriage linearly advanceable in response to activation of the second motor, the second carriage including a third face, a second drive output on the third face, and a second strain sensor on the fourth face, wherein the third and fourth faces are on opposite sides of the second carriage;
a surgical instrument comprising an elongate shaft and a surgical end effector on a distal end of the elongate shaft;
a first drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, and a first actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the first drive input, wherein the first drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the first actuation tendon;
a second drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, and a second actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the second drive input, wherein the second drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the second actuation tendon;
wherein the surgical instrument is removably mountable to the actuator assembly
with the first drive output in contact with the first drive input and with the second drive input in contact with the second drive input,
such that activation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first carriage, resulting in linear movement of the first drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the first actuation tendon,
and such that activation of the second motor causes linear movement of the second carriage, resulting in linear movement of the second drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the second actuation tendon.
Claim 1
A method of sensing forces in a surgical instrument drive system of a surgical robotic system, comprising:
providing an actuator assembly including a first motor and a first carriage coupled to the first motor, the first carriage linearly advanceable relative to a first control axis in response to activation of the first motor, the first carriage including a first face and a second face, wherein the first and second faces are on opposite sides of the first carriage, and a first strain sensor on the second face;
a second motor and a second carriage coupled to the second motor, the second carriage linearly advanceable relative to a second control axis in response to activation of the second motor, the second carriage including a third face and a fourth face, wherein the third and fourth faces are on opposite sides of the second carriage, and a second strain sensor on the fourth face;
providing a surgical instrument comprising an elongate shaft and a surgical end effector on a distal end of the elongate shaft;
a first drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, and a first actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the first drive input, wherein the first drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the first actuation tendon;
a second drive input positioned at the proximal end of the elongate shaft, and a second actuation tendon extending between the surgical end effector and the second drive input, wherein the second drive input is linearly moveable relative to the shaft to actuate the surgical end effector by altering tension on the second actuation tendon;
removably mounting the surgical instrument to the actuator assembly;
positioning the first drive output of the first face of the first carriage in contact with the first drive input; positioning the second drive output of the third face of the second carriage in contact with the second drive input,
activating the first motor, causing linear movement of the first carriage, said linear movement causing linear advancement of the first drive output and corresponding linear movement of the first drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the first actuation tendon, and, while activating the first motor, causing the first strain sensor to generate feedback corresponding to forces along the first control axis
activating the second motor causes linear movement of the second carriage, said linear movement causing linear advancement of the second drive output and corresponding linear movement of the second drive input and corresponding alteration in tension of the second actuation tendon and, while activating the second motor, causing the second strain sensor to generate feedback corresponding to forces along the second control axis.
Using the robotic system of Claim 15 of 17/495,687 results in performance of the method recited in Claim 1 of 18/435,145.
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same actuator assembly including the same “first motor” and “first carriage” arranged in the same manner
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same actuator assembly including the same “second motor” and “second carriage” arranged in the same manner
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same surgical instrument
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same “first drive input” and “first tendon” configuration
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same “second drive input” and “second tendon” configuration
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same removable mounting
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same operative engagement of the respective first and second carriages and drive inputs
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same manner of activation
The sensors of Claim 15 of 17/495,687 are caused to generate such feedback as recited in Claim 1 of 18/435,145 upon the activation recited in both claims
Claim 15 of 17/495,687 and Claim 1 of 18/435,145 recite the same manner of activation
The sensors of Claim 15 of 17/495,687 are caused to generate such feedback as recited in Claim 1 of 18/435,145 upon the activation recited in both claims
Claim 16
wherein each of the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor is positioned to measure strain in the corresponding underlying carriage
Claim 2
wherein providing the actuator assembly includes providing each of the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor in a position to measure strain in the corresponding underlying carriage
Claim 16 of 17/495,687 and Claim 2 of 18/435,145 both recite the same strain sensors
Claim 17
wherein the first and second strain sensors are thin film strain sensors
Claim 3
wherein the first and second strain sensors are thin film strain sensors.
Claim 17 of 17/495,687 and Claim 3 of 18/435,145 both recite the same thin film strain sensors
Claim 18
wherein the first carriage is linearly advanceable along a first axis in response to activation of the first motor, and wherein the first strain sensor is positioned to generate feedback corresponding to forces along the first axis
Claim 4
wherein activating the first motor linearly advances the first carriage in a direction parallel to the first axis in response to activation of the first motor and wherein activating the second motor linearly advances the second carriage in a direction parallel to the second axis in response to activation of the second motor
Claim 18 of 17/495,687 and Claim 4 of 18/435,145 both recite the same manner of activation
Claim 19
wherein, when the surgical instrument is mounted to the actuator assembly, the first drive input is positioned such that actuation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first drive input along an axis parallel to the first axis
Claim 5
wherein mounting the surgical instrument to the actuator assembly positions the first drive input such that actuation of the first motor causes linear movement of the first drive input along an axis parallel to the first axis
Claim 19 of 17/495,687 and Claim 5 of 18/435,145 both recite the same mounted configuration
Claim 20
wherein the first motor includes a screw member extending from the first motor, and wherein the first carriage is moveable on the screw member
Claim 6
wherein activating the first motor causes movement of the first carriage on a screw member
Claim 20 of 17/495,687 and Claim 6 of 18/435,145 both recite the same movement of the first carriage on a screw member
Claim 21
wherein the screw member is a ball screw member.
Claim 7
wherein activating the first motor causes movement of the first carriage on a ball screw member
Claim 21 of 17/495,687 and Claim 7 of 18/435,145 both recite the same movement of the first carriage on a ball screw member
Claim 22
wherein the first carriage includes a flexure, and wherein the first strain sensor is positioned to generate feedback corresponding to deflection of the first carriage at the flexure.
Claim 8
wherein the first carriage includes a flexure, and wherein the method includes causing the first strain sensor to generate feedback resulting from deflection of the first carriage at the flexure
Claim 22 of 17/495,687 and Claim 8 of 18/435,145 both recite the same flexure and force sensor
Using the force sensor of Claim 22 of 17/495,687 results in generating the feedback recited in Claim 8 of 18/435,145
Claim 24
wherein the system further includes a first position sensor positioned to generate feedback corresponding to a position of the carriage
Claim 10
further including generating feedback corresponding to a position of the carriage
Claim 24 of 17/495,687 and Claim 10 of 18/435,145 both recite the same feedback generation
Claim 25
wherein the first position sensor comprises a magnetic position sensor
Claim 11
wherein generating feedback corresponding to a position of the carriage includes generating feedback using a magnetic position sensor
Claim 25 of 17/495,687 and Claim 11 of 18/435,145 both recite the same magnetic position sensor
Claim 26
wherein the first carriage includes a magnetic device and wherein the first position sensor includes a Hall sensor
Claim 12
wherein the first carriage includes a magnetic device and the method includes detecting the magnetic device using the magnetic position sensor
Claim 26 of 17/495,687 and Claim 12 of 18/435,145 both recite the same magnetic device
Claim 29
wherein one of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab, and wherein when the first carriage is operatively engaged with the first drive input a proximal or distal surface of the tab is positioned in contact with the other of the first drive output and the first drive input
Claim 14
wherein one of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab, and wherein positioning the first drive input in contact with a first drive output of the carriage includes positioning a proximal or distal surface of the tab in contact with the other of the first drive output and the first drive input
Claim 29 of 17/495,687 and Claim 14 of 18/435,145 both recite the same “tab” configuration of the first drive input and/or the first drive output, and the same manner of operatively engaging the two
Claim 30
wherein each of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab
Claim 15
wherein each of the first drive output and the first drive input is a tab
Claim 30 of 17/495,687 and Claim 15 of 18/435,145 both recite the same “tab” configuration of the first drive input and the first drive output
Claim 31
wherein the first drive output and the first drive input are in mating engagement when the first carriage is operatively engaged with the first drive input
Claim 16
wherein operatively engaging the first carriage with the first drive input includes positioning the first drive input and the first drive output in mating engagement
Claim 31 of 17/495,687 and Claim 16 of 18/435,145 both recite the same manner of operatively engaging the first drive input and the first drive output
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796